Hatred of Heretics

A few weeks ago, Rob Bell released a book called "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived" and in the wake of a video he made to promote the book, it caused a kerfuffle (by the way, I have never had to spell that word before and had to look it up) in the church world. Some took that the video was implying that Bell didn't believe in hell or that at the very least he believed that Gandhi is not in hell (when they believe that he is because he was not a Christian). This was all based off of people not even reading the book. Some used this moment to dismiss him and could finally call him a false teacher, etcetera, etcetera.

At this point, I should mention that I have since read the book myself and I am admittedly a fan of Rob Bell and have been for a long time. His approach to teaching is one that I appreciate and one that challenges. I feel I should say this because I admit I have a bias in this.

However, I don't want this post to be about what I thought about the book. Perhaps in a future post, but I am not interested in that. What caught my attention and what made me more sympathetic to Bell before the book even came out was the reaction of Christians.

It was the immediate and seemingly flippant response to Bell. It was considered outside of Christian thought because it seemed to challenge the traditional understanding of faith. The question was not allowed to be asked.

This has always been a sore spot for me because it feels like questions are treated like they are the source of evil in faith. I was born into a faith that had everything locked down. Every story and passage had a certain understanding and it did not waiver. If there was a question that was asked, there is an answer even if it is an uncomfortable, hard truth that people will just have to suck up.

Essentially, everything in theology and Christianity had been boxed up and the only people that were allowed to ask questions were those who were outside the church because they "lacked understanding" and even then eventually they would be told "you just need to have faith" if their questions could not be answered.

I understand why many think that questions in faith is contradictory. How can you say you believe something when you question it? Doesn't that indicate that you don't have faith? Doesn't that indicate a distance because you don't even know the god that you profess to follow?

It would essentially boil down to "If Jesus said it, I believe it!" and it was a battle cry of sorts. I have faith! I have zero questions! Questions don't matter! The only one who can ask questions is God, that is it! The fewer questions you have, the more faith you had.

It felt strange to be honest. When someone said that they "had faith in Jesus", it seemed like they meant that they believed what he said was true. Thus the line of logic is that as long as you believe that Jesus is Lord and saviour and that you say you're sorry, then you "had faith in Jesus" and that you'd be saved.

The idea was that justification (being declared righteous before God) came at a word spoken and that sanctification (the process of becoming 'holy') was either unimportant for your eternal soul or is automatically given to you when you become a Christian. It seems like the spiritual journey of faith boils down to a moment in time. That split second where you asking Jesus to be your saviour changed you from being condemned to hell forever to getting the greatest gift in the world.

I always felt like that was a cheap journey. In fact, not really a journey. It turned the journey of faith to be essentially slapping a bumper sticker on the back of your car and then you could do donuts in the parking lot until you ran out of gas and you would still be declared a traveller.

Is the journey of faith really that easy? So simple? The rest of your life doesn't matter except for a 30 second prayer?

It was strange because when it talks about faith in Hebrews 11, it lists the great heroes and heroines of the Hebrews who did something because they believed. If I told you that your house was about to blow up, and you said "I totally believe everything you are saying and you are truly my saviour" but that was it, do you really act in faith just saying you believed? It seemed like faith was tied up in doing what God wants you to do. To show that you had faith seems more like you believed what God tells you to do to the point that you actually did it. James 2 talks about faith being something that you do.

Some Christians seem to balk at the idea and are quick to say that you aren't saved by doing good works. Which is not what I was saying. I am saying that your statement of faith is not words. I am saying that your faith is living faithfully the best you can because that shows that you actually have faith that God isn't out to trick you.

Which leads me back to questions. If we are trying to be faithful to the call of Jesus, shouldn't we be working to act the best we can as followers?

In every other field of thought, it is questioning the status quo that leads to innovation and to keep up with the changing culture and changing social paradigms. Not that the Bible is irrelevant to today and we need to update it, but rather shouldn't we be figuring out how to apply the powerful, life-changing message of the Bible in a context that is different. What does it mean to be faithful when the scenario is vastly different from the time of Christ when His message was subversive and his Lordship not understood and when He broke the chains of a strangling religion? Now, we live in a culture where Jesus is apart of the social milieu, when some of the world's leaders and rich are His followers (in sharp contrast to the oppressed people of the less influential). What does it mean to be a rich North American in the state of security far from the tragic issues of the world? How do we be faithful? Aren't all of these questions that are worth asking?

I suppose I have two reasons that I am inclined to listen to a guy like Rob Bell.

One is that I have felt for a long time that Christianity has lost its power and its purpose because we don't do much. We do missions and perhaps serve once in a while not because we see it as apart of us declaring that Jesus is Lord but because it makes us feel good. Faith has become a way to make us feel good as opposed to being apart of our purpose which is to join with the work of God to bring rejuvenation, redemption, order and love to a world in chaos and on the brink of destruction. It is my belief that this is rooted in how we understand what faith is and I have wondered for a long time if we have allowed our traditional understanding of faith to actually make us spiritually blind and lazy. Our faith is taught as something cheap, easy and an accessory to a privileged lifestyle as opposed to something that requires us to live completely different.

I believe that the journey of faith is much more than slapping on a bumper sticker. It is something that requires us to be curious. To be adventurous. To be aware of the hurt in the world. To be willing to become heroes for the sake of the one who calls us to be heroes and has shown us the way to be heroes.

Unfortunately, I do not believe our current understanding to be a sacrificial hero, but rather it is constructed as something that keeps us locked up in our walled cities and guns ready to shoot anyone who disagrees with us.

The other reason I am inclined to believe Rob Bell is not necessarily because of who he is. Rob Bell, unlike many other preachers who were cast out as someone legitimate to listen to, has had a history of teaching that looks to not just tow the line, but rather set people free from the demons of this life. Demons like insecurity, laziness, anger and distance from God. He doesn't seem to be in it for the money. Sure, maybe the Nooma videos are pricey, but he's not begging to send money to his church. It is hard to say that what he is saying is self-serving or even an easy gospel.

However, he asks a question that Christians do not like which is one that strikes to the core understanding of faith and he is painted as a monster. He is the anti-Christ (just like Barack Obama and Michel Gorbachev before him). We are told that he is crazy and off-base without hearing him out. He is a heretic and he deserves hatred from Christians despite bringing messages of hope and freedom in this world of pain and tragedy.

This reaction seems to be so violent and angry that it makes it seem like everything that Bell has ever said before this moment is not to be listened to. I think the guy's earned the chance to ask a question.

Who seems more like the one with compassion and wisdom? The guy who is sincerely wanting to challenge the status quo to bring about possibly a richer, deeper faith or the guy who is willing to cast the first stone before the sin is even committed? There is a distressingly strict religion that has built up around the life-saving teachings of Christ that it feels like the Pharisees have found their new home in the church. Let's remember that the Pharisees were born out of a sincere desire to follow God, but they let their understanding of the scriptures to be the prison to those who want to seek God as opposed to an opportunity to live in the richness of faith.

It is important for us to not put our faith in a stranglehold because we may kill it, but rather wrestle with it back and forth with the questions of what faith is and what it looks like. It will make us stronger and better able to travel the journey of life.

"Oh, let me put you in your place
I love it when you say
Giving everything away

Tell what's in it for me
Tell me now what's in it for me
No one's getting this for free
So tell me now what's in it for me

Whatever keeps you warm at night
(Whatever keeps you warm at night)
Whatever keeps you warm inside

Your bridges are burning down
They're all coming down
It's all coming round
You're burning them down"
- "Bridge Burning" from the Foo Fighters' album "Wasting Light"